Supreme Court Refuses P2P 'Innocent Sharing' Case 351
yoyo81 writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear an 'innocent infringement case' in which Whitney Harper shared some music on the family computer when she was a teenager and was subsequently hit with a lawsuit from the RIAA. An appeals court overturned an earlier ruling from a federal court that reduced damages to $200 instead of the statutory $750 claiming 'innocence' was no defense, especially since copyright notices appear on all phonorecords. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear her case, but Justice Alito stated, 'This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet' and further,
'I would grant review in this case because not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals.' For now, though, Harper's verdict remains in place: $750 for each of the 37 songs at issue, or $27,750."
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Funny)
Could be worst. It could be the entire lyrics [wikipedia.org].
Re:One of your examples is not like the other (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe you should. For all of us.
Re:Stupid (Score:2, Funny)
If i had the mod points, I'd throw them to you. +1
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, put that in and make it and unskippable on every CD. Then it'll be just like the DVD release.
Oh, they should also put in ads for other songs. I love that.
Re:This is how I see it (Score:3, Funny)
Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated... How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside? ...
Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it"
Hey, I run a mail-order bakery and I was sending samples of baking powder to every household in America. Didn't you hear of the "Killer Ingredients at Drop-Dead prices" campaign?
In retrospect, it wasn't the best marketing campaign, and I'm up for parole soon, but excuse ME for thinking that we were ALLOWED to be ENTREPRENEURS in AMERICA.